My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Minister will not be surprised if I quote from that committee because it is important to have some of the points that were raised on the record.
I am very grateful that our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, is with us today. She very ably managed what has been, frankly, a chaotic process over the past few days. Normally we would expect an Explanatory Memorandum to arrive well ahead of the committee’s deliberations. In fact, we had to hold an emergency meeting of the committee to discuss the amendment, because it was tabled so late. We had no Explanatory Memorandum until very late in the afternoon of the day before we met. Our legal advice was therefore very limited, and we did not have the narrative that we would normally have expected. We had a series of very conclusive points but the committee was not well placed to make the usual judgment. Nevertheless, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the clerks, we managed to prepare a very thorough, forensic and serious report on the process of the amendments and how they were tabled, as well as their content.
The process is important, of course, and for reasons that I have explained it was not at all satisfactory, but the content was even less satisfactory. The conclusion of the committee on these amendments, which essentially move the procedure from affirmative to negative in relation to the clause, is that it is inappropriate. It is a very serious judgment; we do not make it lightly and we do not make it very often. Any amendment that reduces the level of parliamentary scrutiny in this way deserves serious consideration by the House. In this situation, it means that the Minister has agreed and made it clear that these instruments can no longer be regarded as hybrid instruments—that is to say, in relation to the creation and powers of UDAs and UDCs.
Why are the UDAs and UDCs important? What do they do? They go back a long way. They have been created, and not lightly, for the major planning decisions that involve massive change and development. Ebbsfleet is a good example but, coming along, we may have garden cities and massive urban extensions—all developments that will have a profound impact on local communities and infrastructure, as well as local jobs and everything else that goes with it.
The argument against hybridity in the context of what is proposed is that it introduces delay and uncertainty. It takes too long and can be disruptive. Indeed, the Minister has just used the words, “quicker”, “easier” and “cheaper”. We are all in favour of, and see the necessity for, urgent and strategic housebuilding in this country; there is no difference between us on that. What we do not want is to see a process deliberately compromised because the Government do not agree with that process, which has been in place and has served the country and the planning system well for the past 30 years.
The committee was very clear on this, saying:
“We do not find the arguments advanced in the memorandum in support of the proposal to downgrade the level of Parliamentary control … to be at all persuasive”.
It went on to say:
“We note that, when those sections were enacted to confer these significant order-making powers on the Secretary of State, it was recognised in the course of the proceedings in each House that orders designating UDAs and establishing UDCs were likely to be found hybrid … with the result that the petitioning process would be available to ensure that those whose interests were directly affected by the orders could have their objections properly examined and determined by a select committee of this House. In the light of what is said in the Government’s memorandum, and in particular in paragraph 20 regarding the current proposals for a UDA and UDC at Ebbsfleet in Kent, we consider that the retention of the hybrid instrument procedure in this context is no less necessary today for the purpose of properly safeguarding such interests than it was when sections 134 and 135 were first enacted … The present proposals do not appear to flow from any general review of infrastructure or other statutory planning procedures in connection with the designation of UDAs and the establishment of UDCs. Had that been the case, we might have expected to have seen provisions of this kind in the draft Deregulation Bill published last Session”.
5.15 pm
That is pretty clear. In fact, this argument about the purpose of hybridisation in relation to the use of the petition, and the representation and consideration of local views, is worth exploring as well. A hybrid instrument is there to protect people whose situation is going to be dramatically changed by whatever it is that the UDC plans to do: people who are directly affected by the massive changes implied in these developments. The Minister suggests that instead of having petitions and having their concerns properly discussed by a Select Committee, they should be content with a consultation process.
I also sit on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considers the nature of consultation and consultation processes on a weekly basis. Not a week goes by when we do not have something to complain about, in relation to the length of consultation, the timing of consultation, the quality of consultation, or the regard given to consultation by Government. That is not a sufficient argument at all. The petitioning process is there so that people can have the impact on their lives, their future and their families properly considered and their objections properly examined. That is the principle behind the process which has ensured that those exceptional vehicles for exceptional decisions have remained for so many years.
This change has not in any way been prompted by a failure of process. I think that the reference to Ebbsfleet is more than coincidence. Ebbsfleet has imposed certain requirements and urgencies on this Government, and we are faced with a situation, frankly, which is about expediency. I do not think that that is the way to change legislation and processes which affect people’s lives.
The Committee has made perfectly clear that this degree of deregulation is inappropriate. We look forward to the Government’s response, but I think we have already had it. By everything the Minister has said, I think that the Government have rejected the arguments of the Committee. If the Government had wanted to review the process of regeneration, it should have been done in the context of a proper review of planning changes. I had the privilege to be the Minister for Regeneration for a while. I know how serious regeneration challenges are. It has been one of the failures of this Government that they have not articulated a strategy for regeneration in this country. It has been a series of improvised responses. I do not believe that this is the way to make policy or deliver good policy, particularly when what is at stake is the quality of engagement with a local community whose lives are going to be turned upside down by a massive development.
On that basis I beg the Minister to think again about the likely response from the Select Committee. He will know that it is unusual for Government to reject the response and the judgment of the Delegated Powers Committee.